.png "English"){kind=small}
by Rev. Dr. Nicholas Denysenko, Rev. Dr. Alkiviadis Calivas, John Klentos, Paul Meyendorff, Rev. Dr. Stelyios Muksuris, Lewis Patsavos, Teva Regule, and Rev. Dr. Philip Zymaris
PUBLIC ORTHODOXY
In preparation for the Great and Holy Council to be held on Crete in
June, 2016, the Orthodox bishops have issued a preconciliar document on
the sacrament of marriage.
The document’s main thrust is to illuminate the core teaching on
marriage and its sanctity from the Orthodox perspective. Marriage is a
dominical institution reserved for a monogamous union of man and woman
(1.1). The document refers to marriage as “the oldest institution of
divine law” and Christ-centered, since it is “the image of the unity of
Christ and the Church” (1.2). Lament over the decline of family life and
a deep desire to protect families from external threats shape the
remainder of the document’s positions (1.5).
The preconciliar document elucidates the fundamental theology of the
mystery of marriage and appeals for pastoral sensibility in appointing
canonical parameters for the Church’s blessing and administration of
marriage. The document would be strengthened by elaboration of select
theological dimensions of marriage and reflection on the proposed
enforcement of canonical norms to be applied to marriage. Ultimately, a
more robust articulation of the mystery of marriage will inform the
pastoral application of the impediments to marriage listed in the second
part of the preconciliar document.
The document refers to marriage as “a small church, or image of the
church,” the “image of the Kingdom of the Holy Trinity,” (1.4), and the
“heart of the family” (1.8). These theological metaphors honor the
sacramental images of marriage established from late antiquity and
renewed in modernity, and they also establish the married couple and the
family as the smallest cell of the Church, smaller even than the
parish. Furthermore, these definitions fuse marriage firmly with the
Church so that marriage is ecclesiological and an internal matter of the
Church.
When the document turns to the consequences of the turbulence of the
world and expresses grave concern over the problems of divorce and
abortion, it seeks to equip pastors to defend and protect marriage from
external threats. This thematic progression pits the Church against the
threats of the world, an opposition established by grounding the mystery
of marriage in the Church from the outset of the teaching.
The document does not account for two substantial facts: the process
of selecting marital partners has evolved in modernity and some of the
threats to marriage are not external. A consideration of these two
realities would strengthen the approach to the Church’s pastoral
sensibility proposed by the teaching. The teaching must account for the
reality that most men and women in the modern world do not accept
arranged marriages and choose their own partners. This reality has
implications for the pastoral approach to marriage, because men and
women will participate in courtship before marriage. The Church has an
opportunity to provide witness to single people as they engage in
pre-marital courtship, especially in discerning the marital love and the
longevity of fidelity in the haze of impulse and excitement.
Furthermore, the document limits its pastoral concern to abortion and
divorce, but does not account for other serious matters that threaten
marriage, such as domestic abuse, alcoholism, and selfish pride. Many
marriages are threatened by fallen human nature, and a program for
pastoral care for marriage can account for the problem of sin and for
husbands and wives to understand their responsibilities as established
by the theological sources (e.g., Eph. 5:25, the husband’s
responsibility to give up his life for his wife).
The opposition of marriage as an ecclesial institution pitted against
a threatening world impoverishes the good that can come from healthy
marriages in the Church. The Orthodox Church honors numerous beautiful
images of love shared between married couples. In many instances,
marriages of love contribute enormously to the mission of the Church by
providing shared Orthodox witness for the life of the world. The first
two prayers of the rite of crowning present images of couples who
received God’s blessing and participated in his salvific work. Here, the
conciliar teaching might be strengthened by referring to these holy
marriages and appealing to pastors to celebrate and honor healthy
marriages in their parishes. Furthermore, a shared reverence for holy
marriages of the past and present might be introduced as models for
those receiving pre-marital counseling. Creating the space for narrating
the stories of healthy marriages contributes to the elucidation of
marriage as a rehearsal of exchanging love on a daily basis, one which
requires ascetical toil through the processes of forgiveness,
reconciliation, and pouring one’s self out for the other.
The document states the marriage of an Orthodox Christian with a
non-Orthodox Christian is forbidden and cannot be celebrated in the
Church, though it can be “blessed out of indulgence” if the children of
marriage will be baptized and raised Orthodox (2.5a). This particular
point may be the most challenging pastoral matter for contemporary
Orthodoxy, especially in North and South America and Western Europe,
where the overwhelming majority of marriages are mixed. The Church has
honored marriages between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians without
ritual restrictions (except Holy Communion) for many years, and the
non-Orthodox spouse frequently becomes Orthodox through participation in
the life of the local parish. An attempt to implement this initiative
pastorally would raise serious questions, especially given that
“intermarriage” is easily the norm for most Orthodox.
The document briefly alludes to families, so a larger discussion on
marriage would benefit from explicit reference to children, especially
since the rite of marriage makes several references to children as the
fruit of marriage. One of the crises facing some Orthodox Churches today
is the decline of people requesting marriage from the Church. The
Church’s presentation of marriage as a beautiful model of love with the
capacity to contribute to God’s salvation of the world might encourage
men and women to seek marriage in the Church. The Church’s conscious
choice to honor good marriages publicly is one step towards
rehabilitating the prospect of marriage among single people.
There are other issues the document does not address, but remain
relevant. First, what pastoral initiatives might be created for widowed
and divorced clergy? Second, what is the vocation of the single person
in the Church? Last, can the Church adopt a more charitable view of
marriages between Orthodox and non-Christians? As Orthodoxy seeks new
ways to dialogue with postmodern society, it will be necessary for
future councils to expand the discourse beyond the question of marriage
and its impediments.
This essay was sponsored by the Orthodox Theological Society in
America’s Special Project on the Great and Holy Council and published by
the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University.Nicholas Denysenko is Associate Professor of Theological Studies and Director of the Huffington Ecumenical Institute at Loyola Marymount University.
Alkiviadis Calivas is Emeritus Professor of Liturgics at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology.
John Klentos is Associate Professor of Eastern Orthodoxy Studies at the Patriarch Athenagoras Orthodox Institute and the Graduate Theological Union.
Paul Meyendorff is the Alexander Schmemann Professor of Liturgical Theology at St. Vladimir’s Seminary.
Stelyios Muksuris is Professor of Liturgical Theology at the Byzantine Catholic Seminary of Saints Cyril and Methodius.
Lewis Patsavos is Emeritus Professor of Canon Law at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology.
Teva Regule is a doctoral candidate in the theology department at Boston College.
Philip Zymaris is Assistant Professor of Liturgics at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology.
